Muhammad Rasheed's Blog, page 198

In Service to Dishonor

Muhammad Rasheed -



Brad Richards - One like wow hold back social media

Stephen Wilkinson - probably your worst analogy EVER, lol

Muhammad Rasheed - You think so? Tell me why.

Stephen Wilkinson - one, it trivializes the deep, pernicious and unconscionable implementation of institutionalized and unconscious racism in America to playground bullying, a minor thing, that the 'kids would have been able to 'settle among themselves like men, if it weren't for the meddling teachers'

A push from the bully meets a push back from the child - but is each "push" the same as the other?, the conflation therein is an insulting joke

Even taken literally, it fails, since the child is not 'suspended for being bullied' but suspended for fighting, ( yes Felicia, "fighting back" is still fighting, you are supposed to take your case to a grownup or teacher and have THEM handle it :D )

Muhammad Rasheed - Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "one, it trivializes the deep, pernicious and unconscionable implementation of institutionalized and unconscious racism in America..."

I meant to draw a correlation between how the pushback from the victim of bullying is frowned upon and discouraged by both the bully and the greater community to the same responses for the victims of racism. One "Dallas cop shooting incident" or even a "violent Nat Turner uprising" are considered equal to centuries of international level, genocidal oppression, which perfectly mirrors the bully's "WTF?!" response in the racist. Treating the victim of bullying, who finally gets fed up and pushes back against his oppressor, as if he is COMPLETELY out of line, is no less than an indoctrination intended to condition an entire generation to an acceptance of oppression, training them for acceptance of an adulthood of oppression.

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "...to playground bullying, a minor thing, that the 'kids would have been able to 'settle among themselves like men, if it weren't for the meddling teachers'"

It isn't a minor thing at all for a hostile force to unjustly oppress another, Stephen. What is being acted out on the school yard is a microcosm reflection of what is going on in the greater society, as powerful nations and mega-corporate cartels bully less powerful nations out of their resources because they want to. Conspicuously putting more emphasis on preventing the oppressed from fighting back, than the effort focused on stopping the bullying, is a thinly-disguised part of the 'breaking' technique of crushing someone's spirit. It removes hope, and forces someone to learn to just accept conditions as they are.

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "A push from the bully meets a push back from the child - but is each 'push' the same as the other?, the conflation therein is an insulting joke"

lol The push from the victim is treated exactly like the push from the bully, just as the eventual explosive outburst of violence from a Nat Turner, or a handful of Black youths inflicting the "knockout game" on some elderly Whites, is treated by the greater society as every bit as horrifying as centuries of multi-continent White Supremacist murder/subjugation of a race.

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "Even taken literally, it fails, since the child is not 'suspended..."

"Taken literally" please note that I *FIXED the part of the 'suspension, and focused instead on the part above the dotted line where my actual point lay.

When I pushback against the racist on even the smallest level, he mirrors the bully's outraged indignation, and calls foul on the perceived equal-for-equal "reverse racism." The concept of "colorblindness" that the "good cop" cultivates functions ONLY as a "let's agree to never acknowledge race so we won't have to acknowledge racism, and that will make it magically go away" which equals the very trivialization that you believe my 'insulting' analogy creates. In other words, I'm trying to shove your face into the insult that was already there. lol Instead I discover a Black person mirroring behavior that I always make a point to denounce in the White racist*: Getting insulted over the RESPONSE to the unaddressed evil of racism, which is the whole point of my analogy meme message.

Again, Stephen, don't do that on my Timeline. Because ew.

*I also denounce it when expressed by the "colorblind" pro-Zionist.

Stephen Wilkinson - your screenful of voluminous prose fails.

Your analogy is still as in expert and inarticulate as before despite your verbose efforts to justify your ill chosen phrases and examples.

-- STRAW MAN FOLLOWS
"Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "...to playground bullying, a minor thing, that the 'kids would have been able to 'settle among themselves like men, if it weren't for the meddling teachers'"

It isn't a minor thing at all for a hostile force to unjustly oppress another, Stephen""

^ To cut and paste my words out of context like some sort of bizarre ransom note in order to create a logically dissimilar argument to respond to an trump triumphantly is 'Deceitful Debating 101' :P

" Getting insulted over the RESPONSE to the unaddressed evil of racism, which is the whole point of my analogy meme message.

Again, Stephen, don't do that on my Timeline. Because ew."

^ Insulted?

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Maybe images, not words are your rapier? If so, then use the sword you wield best and not cry like a little bee when your refusal to properly button your big boy pants before you go out in public is called out.

If you want to be held to a lesser standard then say so! :D

As for your timeline?



Muhammad Rasheed - Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "--STRAW MAN FOLLOWS [...] ^ To cut and paste my words out of context..."

You do believe that bullying -- when a hostile force unjustly oppresses another -- is a "minor thing," right? Okay, then. I disagree, and you're a poop head. I win.

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "Methinks the lady doth protest too much."

This means that your pride is wounded, you can't do anything about it, and you are having a "WELL, BLOCK ME THEN IF I'M BOTHERING YOU!!! *sob!*" tantrum. No. I only block my crazy relatives when they want to get all "Jerry Springer-ish" in public.

lol Does the 900 word essay I write every time you post imply that you're "bothering" me? I would be a lot more terse, and a whole lot meaner if you were. I'm just advising you to stop waving the pro-White Tears flag in a "We Drink White Tears" zone. lol But if you don't care then have at it. Is your entire harem full of Beckies? If so it would explain much. No judgment though, it just helps me understand better. Do you.

Stephen Wilkinson - "Getting insulted over the RESPONSE to the unaddressed evil of racism, which is the whole point of my analogy meme message."

Again, Stephen, don't do that on my Timeline. Because ew."

^ (SEE ABOVE FOR "TANTRUM", see pic below for my response)

Short version of all the above: Calling Apples Oranges then arguing vociferously and "straw manishly" fails.

Whining "no! not my ̶h̶y̶m̶e̶n̶ timeline! o.O " also fails :D

Use your words, use the right words, properly frame your arguments and analogies.

Maybe "meme making" aint your thing. 99% of memes are bullshit anywa



Muhammad Rasheed - lol My arguments, analogies and wording aren't the issue. Your own inability to develop a counter-argument more effective than shallow potshots is the root cause of your bitchin'.

You've decided, for whatever reason, to throw in with The Order of the Atheist Protector of Delicate White Tears. I consider these folk fair game in the greater war against racism, primarily because of my deep lack of respect & give-a-shit for their cause. Because of my fondness for you and our battles, I was just trying to save you from unnecessary damage with my advice to keep that mess off my Timeline. But if you do not mind having that low and unworthy battle with me then okay. If you like it, I love it. :D

Stephen Wilkinson - Hmmm... doing you a favor by pointing out "your fly is open" and THIS is the thanks I get??

So like religious zealot, wrapped in a world void of introspection, let alone criticism it is doomed to fail, wrapped in the coffin of its preconceived yet false perfection :P

Any questioning must surely be the act of an apostate or kaffir or enemy of the One True Santa Claus! :P

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Just know that as an admitted religious zealot, I only accept "God talk" with no questions asked. It should go without saying that an atheist will need to present stronger documented justifications for his opinions than merely "because I said so." I know from your FF #237 'Spinnerette' atheist world view, you believe that the sheeple theist should just hop-to! on blind faith no matter what the source is, but it doesn't actually work like that. I'm open to secular-level influence when it comes to secular-level items. You just have to use secular-level tools & techniques, not the ones used for the spirit (faith/belief). This may be the source of your confusion.

You may also need to rethink your approach in HOW you point out someone's fly is open. Right now it comes across like "OW! You sting my feels by being mean to my precious White Tears!" If this ISN'T your actual intention, then I suggest you CHANGE UTTERLY.

You're welcome. :)

ALL FOOLISHNESS MATTERS: Kindred Spirits in Racism & Atheism

Muhammad Rasheed -


Reg Clinton Brown - I came to this conclusion in grade school
Stephen Wilkinson - Good for you!

Many GROWN MEN *cough*Muhammad*cough* are yet to... *cough*

..oh dear me, I seem to have suffered a coughing fit of some sort! :D

Muhammad Rasheed - First of all, keep the hell still so I don't have to run up and down this damn thread looking for you. >:(

Second, anyone explaining that they came to a narrow-minded, uninsightful conclusion in grade school, and stubbornly held onto it until they were 40+, shouldn't be used as a role model.

Reg Clinton Brown - Well the Holy Books were not scribed by God, they were scribed by men who claimed that "God wrote through them" Muhammad

Muhammad Rasheed - And what are you using to determine that those claims are false?

Reg Clinton Brown - Plus there are missing books in the Bible. The King James version was adulterated by Anglo Saxon agendas. The first books were written in Hebrew and we didn't go in depth of pre-Egyptian polytheism... Sumarian... Babylonian... Dogon Tribes etc

Muhammad Rasheed - What are you using to determine that those "God wrote through them" claims are false?

Reg Clinton Brown - I'm not saying it's false, but people do have the free will to write falsehoods.

Stephen Wilkinson - @Muhammad Rasheed... he does not have to prove them false, rather, the bearer of "extraordinary truths" must themselves also bear the burden of proving their factual basis, lest the people be forever occupied with chasing the theories of fools :P

Therefore, come hither with thy claims of monsters, but bring also his head so that I may examine it!

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm not asking him to prove them false (you can tell because I didn't ask him to do that), but asking him what he personally used to determine the claims were false.

Jeremy Travis - It seems good practice to consider false any story that begins with a talking snake.

Reg Clinton Brown - lol Well sometimes reality could get stranger than fiction :)

Jeremy Travis - True, but, as Stephen mused "...but bring also his head so that I may examine it!" Which is to say that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.

Muhammad Rasheed - I consider that attitude the basic flaw in study so shallow, that the surface level story can only be taken at face value because you lack a knowledge base deep enough to probe further. If "talking snake" is all I walk away with, then it means my knowledge of the material is similar to walking away from America's chattel slavery history thinking "undocumented workers who ate regularly."

It's impossible to take the disbeliever's opinion of the bible seriously when they do that. "I don't believe in this stuff, I don't care or respect it enough to care what it means, and my ignorant opinion of it is somehow profound because I don't believe in it as a badge of honor."

Jeremy Travis - Nope, it means that the story has many logical gaps that require people to make up their own logic hole-fillers, which is why one story leads to thousands of different interpretations by people who all claim to be smarter/better/more studious than the others but offer no more definitive proof than the others. If any of it was divinely true, surely that divine truth would/should have destroyed all the falsehoods by now, and yet more falsehoods pop up all the time. It's as if a great deity decided to share its great message with the world and didn't give a single fuck about quality control.

Muhammad Rasheed - Your "nope", the "proof" comment, the "thousands of different interpretations" part, the "destroyed all falsehoods" part, and the "quality control" part all support what I just said. All of these items are addressed, but you don't know that, dismiss it when it has been pointed out because you don't care, and go on saying the exact same stuff about it like your "Nope" is noble and profound. Just like racist GOP folk sound when they talk about Blacks and BLM, etc.

Jeremy Travis - "All of these items are addressed"
By a lot of different people who say a lot of different things and show a lot of "proof" that's just as dubious but no more definitive than the others.

"Just like racist GOP folk sound when they talk about Blacks and BLM, etc."

If there were literally thousands of people who claim to speak for the BLM movement giving different interpretations, that conflict with each other and with observable reality, of the BLM movement, then one should rightly expect people to be confused about the BLM movement. But considering that those few who speak for the BLM movement give the same message, all confusion is either willful or due to bad, biased reasoning.

Muhammad Rasheed - I have Tea Party-ish, GOP-ish, FB Friends who routinely post Prager U vid clips featuring Blacks explaining why racism isn't what the Black community thinks and we all need to get over it, etc. The poor Black community do think differently about many Black community issues than Blacks in the middle and the wealthy do. There's Blacks who will throw in your face "Black on Black crime" just as quickly as the stupidest racist will, when you get mad over the White cop modern lynching incidents. All Blacks aren't on the same page when it comes to the history of Blacks in this country.

And the opinionated outsider that genuinely doesn't give a shit about Black community concerns -- believes our grievances are fictions we made up or need to get over because we just want free stuff or whatever -- sounds exactly the same when he talks about Black folk stuff as the atheist sounds when discussing organized religion.

In my experience, arguing with you all is the same, with one exception that actually challenged me. The rest of you dip out of the same pool, and sound exactly alike, reinforcing the same straw men and ignorance among each other, exactly like the White racists do in their watering holes when they discuss Blacks.

Jeremy Travis - Is said "But considering that those few who speak for the BLM movement give the same message....", I didn't say "listen to a lot of random Black people". There is a difference.

Muhammad Rasheed - My point is that there is an objective body of work detailing the thread of Black history, in addition to the works, opinions and thousands of different interpretations by Blacks who all claim to be smarter/better/more studious than the others, while they try to tell the rest of us "What We All Need To Do As A People." To the White racist who doesn't give a shit anyway, it all sounds the way organized religion folk sound to the atheist in the exact same parallel.

To the people who DO care, and are in it, both Black history, and Organized Religion sound different, and the opinions of the outsiders sound stupid in their pretend intelligence arrogance.
Stephen Wilkinson - "I consider that attitude the basic flaw in study so shallow, that the surface level story can only be taken at face value because you lack a knowledge base deep enough to probe further"
^ Ah, but there lies the rub.
You start with your claims, based on nothing but your belief which is based on nothing but on your belief WHICH IS BASED ON TURTLES ... ALL THE WAY DOWN! * if y'all dont know what THAT means, look it up!
The problem - and this is a problem we MUST recognize Jeremy, when we deal with people like this, is that activities are not necessarily "single threaded", based on one particular goal. You think, albeit correctly, that Muhammad's goal here is to impress you with his superior skills and argument ( dont hang around for that, disappointment awaits :D) but there are also OTHER parallel goals, some of which are even more important and realistically achievable!
1. Looking good to his audience."Wow my brother, you certainly battled fiercely with the infidel! I liked how you smote their foul words with the golden phrases from the Book! \ :D /"
2. Basking in the glow of a spirited conversation in a forum he commands
3. Plain old trolling
Circling back to the original quote, paraphrased as "you studied and think its bullshit - but that's only because you HAVENT STUDIED IT ENOUGH!"
But THAT will lead us only into a logical BLACK HOLE where reason and common sense will disappear, never to escape its event horizon. Why? Because if something is intrinsically bullshit, it will NEVER STOP BEING BULLSHIT -
- your self reinforcing quest to keep going will fail because there is no light at the end of the tunnel.
There is also the illogical premise of "analyzing" something which, whenever the analysis fails, we are then asked to "just believe it!"
Muhammad Rasheed - Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “Ah, but there lies the rub.”
Nah, that ain’t it. I’ll point out the rub. 
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “You start with your claims, based on nothing…”
My claims are based on the Word of the Supreme Creator of the universe. You’re the one that’s the atheist, remember? You have the monopoly on “nothing.” Eat up.
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “…but your belief which is based on nothing…”
My belief is based on the enduring scripture of the ages, that whole human civilizations were built upon. That’s hardly “nothing.”
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “…but on your belief WHICH IS BASED ON TURTLES…”
I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is His messenger. 
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “The problem […] You think, albeit correctly, that Muhammad's goal here is to impress you with his superior skills and argument ( dont hang around for that, disappointment awaits :D)”
Since Jeremy lacks your own weird, blind faith adoration for Israel (from an ATHEIST! "Rhnh?!"), and self-appointed protector of White Tears®, I doubt he’s liable to get disappointed were I to rough handle them in this part of the thread. He’s safe. Don’t worry about it, J.
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “but there are also OTHER parallel goals, some of which are even more important and realistically achievable!” 
I enjoyed your attempt to read me my mail, though it’s only a couple notches or so above Southern Mormon level. I’m sure you’ll pick up more as we continue to trade. 
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “1. Looking good to his audience.”
That’s just a side effect of my bad assery. 
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “2. Basking in the glow of a spirited conversation in a forum he commands”
I’m enjoying Riley & Kenjji being comfortable as they battle it out here in a safe zone. I swear I’d set snacks out for them if I could.
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “3. Plain old trolling”
Nah, I don’t troll on race or religion. Everything else is fair troll patrol.
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “Circling back to the original quote, paraphrased as 'you studied and think its bullshit - but that's only because you HAVENT STUDIED IT ENOUGH!'" 
By NO means do I believe you yahoos actually studied anything in religion. To be clear, walking away from the origin legend with only “talking snake” as the take away means you know nothing, and are unqualified to share an opinion. High-fiving your equally ignorant fellows in self-reinforcing atheist circle jerks is NOT "study."
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “But THAT will lead us only into a logical BLACK HOLE where reason and common sense will disappear…”
This is a tragic tool firmly within the grasp of the atheist, made even more tragic when he happens to be a tech or scientist, like you and that damned Steed. The 'rub' is that organized religions function on very clear and solid logic, reason, and common sense, but your willful ignorance, and refusal to peek into the concepts to even at least try to get it so you will have a solid base to critique FROM, prevents you from enjoying their beauty on even a rudimentary level.
Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “There is also the illogical premise of 'analyzing' something which, whenever the analysis fails, we are then asked to 'just believe it!'"
The organized religion is composed of two parts:

1.) The immaterial spirit that we are commanded to believe in, so that it's supernatural components will work in our favor both in this world and in the next.

2.) The history of the scripture in the hands of mankind, preached by the messengers. This aspect is part of human history, with data capable of being collected, measured, studied, and analyzed by the scientist.

Reg Clinton Brown - Hhhmmm... good reading

Stephen Wilkinson - @Muhammad Rasheed... I see you parroted my "Turtles reference" though I am overly dismissive of my avian friends for they have shown a capability to understand words and concepts....
"My claims are based on the Word of the Supreme Creator of the universe. "

HE said them, and wrote those claims in a Book which HE (pbuh) also wrote! ( see where this is headed? of course you dont!)

The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"



Muhammad Rasheed - Waaayyy back in 1981, comic book legend John Byrne wrote/drew this wonderful tale within the pages of Fantastic Four #237. The team was trying to capture an asexual alien being, known as “Spinnerette,” who was running around New York causing mischief. Drunk on our oxygen-rich atmosphere, the troubles she caused were only confusion-based misunderstandings, and the FF was able to put things to right relatively quickly in the one-shot, standalone tale. In the end, Sue expressed confusion as to why… with the technology she wielded… the 9ft tall, blue-skinned Spinnerette never tried to disguise herself so she would've negated at least some of the conflict her presence produced. Reed explained that on her planet full of asexual beings, they all looked literally exactly the same. So much so that the humans of planet earth all came across as radically diverse to her, too the point that, in its adorable raw ignorance, it genuinely didn’t think we’d notice it walking around.


This is exactly how the proudly ignorant atheist sounds (“ALL Gods Matter!”) whenever he produces such items as “I’ll go over here and make MY own religion, because I CAN!” and foolishly dumps all belief system concepts in a jumbled heap. He’s genuinely proud that he doesn’t know anything about the concept of ‘The One God,’ and why it’s important philosophically, why it is important to mathematics and physics, and he doesn’t care because he believes that his shallow ignorant opinion is of equal worth to that of a Thomas Aquinas on the subject. Meanwhile your arrogantly proclaimed ignorance is literally parallel to the “n!99er joke” of the White racist. He also believes his self-reinforced ignorant stereotype-based opinions about Blacks, faithfully passed along from generation to generation, are in every way equal or even superior to those of the most informed Black historian-activist, and like the atheist will PROUDLY strut his ignorant foolishness about in the land as if it is some kind of badge of honor.

Stephen Wilkinson - ^ tl;dr was invented for the post above. :P
Atheists do not say "all religions matter"
We are saying that religions are bullshit
"ignorance of" is not the same as "disdain for"
Muhammad Rasheed - Somehow the atheist community believes they have a monopoly on intelligence and critical thought.  This is far from the truth of the matter, and in fact, they are the very definition of close-minded willful ignorance.  Those among you who are truly dumb I suspect believe they will be perceived as smart-by-association simply by proclaiming to their fellows that they are atheists. Deliberately closing off your mind to concepts, making up straw men based on what your uninformed foolishness believes about those concepts, developing a pseudo-belief system by trading "n!99er jokes" with your fellows about those straw men, and then call yourself scoring clever 'zingers' by tossing these stupid-assed "n!99er jokes" at the people who are informed, does NOT make you smart.
My advice?  Unfuck yourself, take the time to at least actually know what you are talking about in a REAL critique, and then come back and duel with me for real.

Stephen Wilkinson - ^ lol?

edit your post for reasonable sentence structure and mental organization and tag me so I can come back

Not worthy of 'debate' at this time :D

Muhammad Rasheed - Your own "tl;dr" meant you are unequipped for a worthy debate, sir. It's my turn to be disappointed.

You may run along now.

Reg Clinton Brown - I do agree Muhammad that atheists do have a "know it all attitude" that's arrogant.

Their closed mindedness explains why they never experienced a spiritual awakening that would challenge that attitude.

They are like a person who says that they know 1st hand everything about deep dark oceans but can't even break the surface of the water because they can't swim.

Stephen Wilkinson - @Reg Clinton Brown... on the contrary.

The key thing about being a scientist, first and foremost is that you not only "look to science", you look to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

What is that?

It is a structured way of thinking and a structured way of organizing information you have gathered from direct observation, using logical rules and other facts to derive additional facts by inferential logic.

The scientific process also has a mechanism that not only welcomes but DEMANDS CHALLENGE and peer review.

Since there is no "magic man" at the end of all curiosity, we are forced to CONTINUE SEARCHING.

With religion, the answers are ALREADY THERE!

A mind that starts with an intellectual dead end is already flawed.

Muhammad ( "my" tl;dr post was simply your own, cut and pasted ( so that you could have it to look at as you edited your alphabet soup into a cogent thought )

Reg Clinton Brown - Talk to me when you explore the entire universe, then come back with your updated "theory of everything".

Reg Clinton Brown - Also, btw science and religion do compliment each other including on the topics of Souls/ Energies.

And Mr Wilkerson, you can say "scientific method" all you want. I'm pro-scientific discovery but you Sir ARE NOT A QUALIFIED SCIENTIST to break any of this down. Holla back when you get that Nobel Prize then I might consider what you say.

Muhammad Rasheed - Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "The key thing about being a scientist, first and foremost is that you not only 'look to science,' [...] and a structured way of organizing information you have gathered from direct observation, using logical rules and other facts to derive additional facts by inferential logic."

See #2 of the "two aspects of the organized belief system above.

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "The scientific process also has a mechanism that not only welcomes but DEMANDS CHALLENGE and peer review."

And on what planet is someone who lacks basic knowledge about a given topic considered the peer of one who does?

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "Since there is no 'magic man' at the end of all curiosity, we are forced to CONTINUE SEARCHING."

This is an example of someone starting with a flawed intellectual dead end in their assumptions as to how the organized religion they are supposed to be critiquing functions. His is well off the mark, has no idea he is off the mark, but is close-minded as to discovering how he is off the mark, while he arrogantly proclaims boldly to the world how his ignorant opinion about the topic has so much value over the primitive mind of the committed theist.

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "With religion, the answers are ALREADY THERE!"

lol The high-level vision was explained to you by the Lord of the universe, and it is your job to dig up the details if your curiosity moves you to do so. The One God told you upfront that He created the universe from a single finite point in the distant past, you as the atheist scientist doubted this, but you found yourself confused and stumbling when the facts leading to Big Bang Theory supported what religion told you upfront was true. In the face of this truth, here we find the atheist scientist STILL flapping his gums in impotent doubting foolishness pulled from the disdainful, mocking, "nothing" the atheist charter is so proudly based upon.

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "A mind that starts with an intellectual dead end is already flawed."

Aye, and you demonstrate this principle BRILLIANTLY.

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "Muhammad ( 'my' tl;dr post was simply your own, cut and pasted ( so that you could have it to look at as you edited your alphabet soup into a cogent thought )"

After having already witnessed you abandon a conversation by feigning shocked outrage that I'm not willing to coddle Caucasian feelings in my analysis of their own compiled medical data, I'd like you to know that I recognize a pitiful red herring fallacy when I see one. In the 'cancer' discussion, you found your own testicular cancer article 'tl;dr' while failing to notice it didn't comply to the terms of our contest, as you apparently intended to magically win simply by posting a link *TO SCIENCE!* Your fake pearl-grabbing outrage was actually the sting of cognitive dissonance when I grabbed the science and proved my point using the Qur'an, logic, reason, and wit. You lacked an equal counter, cried and ran.

I have no doubt of your high intellect, Stephen when you are flexing it within your own lane and preferred fields of interest. Your decision to abandon that same intellect -- as ALL otherwise bright atheists do -- as they approach religious discussion, does you zero credit.

The Greatest Medicine of All

Stephen Wilkinson - [referencing one of my religious debates] lol, ^ Kids debating the "Santaness" of Santa Claus!

I LOVE when create minds that could have found the cure for cancer already are thus engaged!
( rubs "Big Pharma" hands together gleefully )

Muhammad Rasheed - Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "I LOVE when create minds that could have found the cure for cancer already are thus engaged!"

Cancer is proven to be controlled by a preventative lifestyle, and my religion provides me the disciplinary tools to maintain such a lifestyle. Or do you believe the equally well-documented side effects and harms produced from Big Pharma products are providing the secular equivalent of the "blessing" and how dare I'm not inclined to reach for them first?

Stephen Wilkinson - "Muhammad Rasheed wrote: 'Cancer is proven to be controlled by a preventative lifestyle, and my religion provides me the disciplinary tools to maintain such a lifestyle.'"

1. There are MANY types of cancer and the lifestyle discipline you mention is relevant to but a few.

Besides, Knee cancer is highest in religious nutjobs!! :D

Muhammad Rasheed - List three types of cancer that can't be prevented by unfucking your life.

Go.

Stephen Wilkinson - Ovarian cancer, testicular cancer, hodgekins lymphoma, Leukemia, Retinal Blastoma , Breast Cancer

Stephen Wilkinson - WARNING: Entering a SCIENCE ZONE.
/BEGIN

Pseudo-scientific or religious BS will not be tolerated.
Peer reviewed citations required for all 'facts' asserted.

/END parameters.

Muhammad Rasheed - Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "Ovarian cancer, testicular cancer, hodgekins lymphoma, Leukemia, Retinal Blastoma , Breast Cancer"

You realize that we are not talking about the immaterial spirit, right? I asked you to give me a list of cancers that can't be prevented by a healthy lifestyle. By listing the above, that implies you have definitive proof that these fit that criterion. We can start easy... do scientists document for record that they know without doubt what causes these listed types of cancer? Provide this info, please.

Stephen Wilkinson - "Muhammad Rasheed wrote: 'Cancer is proven to be controlled by a preventative lifestyle, and my religion provides me the disciplinary tools to maintain such a lifestyle." 

Lets see your prayer rug and Meccah pointing compass or hallal chicken deal with cancer of the nutz!

Testicular Cancer: Causes, Symptoms and Treatments

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) "Although scientists are not sure what the specific causes of testicular cancer are..."

>:(  You have a 'listening' problem, I see.

2.) "Testicular cancer is more common among Caucasian males, compared to men of African or Asian descent."

Most of these "common risk factor" abnormal development items sound suspiciously like what happens when you violate an incest taboo. Yeah, don't do that. The Qur'an helpfully lists who you are allowed to sh'boing.

So since they have no idea what really causes it, outside of incestuous deformed people getting it, I'm going to stick to healthy living being more likely to prevent it.

3.) "The incidence of testicular cancer in the USA has more than doubled over the last four decades among Caucasian males, and has recently started to rise among afro-American males."

This one is a no-brainer, and either comes from too much processed "food" in your diet, or those bs drugs (and probably both). This is a clear "healthy living as preventative" item.

Muhammad Rasheed - What else you got?

Stephen Wilkinson - I am restricting my debates with you to matters that are surely within your competency and expertise and look to discuss Cartoons with you in the future.

Your response on a scientific discussion is beyond disappointing and I will not reengage.

Muhammad Rasheed - Despite the wording, I recognize you just got beat up. Don't play with me, Steve-O.

Stephen Wilkinson - Hardly.

your recognition algorithms must be malfunctioning. :(

Muhammad Rasheed - Whatevs. Note that you failed to comply to the contest requirements, and are thus frustrated at your own foolishness and ridiculous claims?

That means I win natch.

Stephen Wilkinson - sure it does.... [pats Muhammad on the head absentmindedly , then winces a bit as he runs off and runs headlong into the coffee table in pursuit of yet another dubious "achievement"]   :D

Muhammad Rasheed - Meh. I know you are too prideful to admit the loss.  Artifacts of the Black Superheroes

Muhammad Rasheed - I won't hold it against you.

But know you that the thread will always be open for you if you decide to not be lazy and return to the battle.

Stephen Wilkinson - what battle?

your stock dropped when you responded with racist inbred allegations and mangled 1/2 quotes from the article, sounding just like a Trump supporter - with a hijab :P

I'm not sure if you read it, and now actually hope you didnt - kinder to assume joke-fail rather than comprehension-fail.. meh. If anything I felt a sense of loss

Anyway, gonna hit the bike for a bit

Muhammad Rasheed - Your article said that 1.) the scientists don't know where it comes from, and 2.) Caucasians get testicular cancer more often. So how is my venturing my own best guess opinion as to what might be causing the disease -- based on the article's own description of the birth defect nature of the listed risk factors mind -- racist?

Your response doesn't come across as objective & rational.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Stephen... Still nothing, eh?

You know, that makes the second time I've witnessed you drop all pretense to scientific, objective thinking, to go all "Yes, master!" over some mysterious force that absolutely does not warrant such blind devotion. I'm going to separate this 'cancer' portion into it's own blog post, as I feel this phenomenon you've demonstrated is worth studying in isolation. Curious.

Debunking the Debunking: Yes, the GOP is Racist

Muhammad Rasheed -


Kirb Brimstone - Debunking the "Parties Switched" Myth

Kirb Brimstone - Reagan switched parties in 1962.

Republican Party Platform in 1960:

"We pledge:
The Department of Justice will continue its vigorous support of court orders for school desegregation. Desegregation suits now pending involve at least 39 school districts. Those suits and others already concluded will affect most major cities in which school segregation is being practiced.

It will use the new authority provided by the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to prevent obstruction of court orders.

We will propose legislation to authorize the Attorney General to bring actions for school desegregation in the name of the United States in appropriate cases, as when economic coercion or threat of physical harm is used to deter persons from going to court to establish their rights.

Our continuing support of the President's proposal, to extend federal aid and technical assistance to schools which in good faith attempted to desegregate.

We oppose the pretense of fixing a target date 3 years from now for the mere submission of plans for school desegregation. Slow-moving school districts would construe it as a three-year moratorium during which progress would cease, postponing until 1963 the legal process to enforce compliance. We believe that each of the pending court actions should proceed as the Supreme Court has directed and that in no district should there be any such delay."

Kirb Brimstone - But you know... Internet memes.

Kirb Brimstone - Can you tell me when the parties switched?

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb, what do you believe you just corrected? Your link acknowledges that the KKK was birthed from the democrat party. And I pulled that quote from Reagan's 1988 RNC speech. So how is the meme inaccurate? Because of your Reagan worship?

Kirb Brimstone - Reagan left the Democratic Party for the Republican Party at a time when Republicans undoubtedly where the Civil Rights party. So it doesn't make any sense (if the implications of the meme are to be taken seriously) that Reagan left one party that only paid lip service to desegregation (after it had been written into law by Eisenhower). He supported Nixon who actually enforced desegregation (something JFK or LBJ never did).

I showed you what the Republican party platform was at that time. So Reagan decided to switch parties to a party that was actively trying to pass Civil rights law?

So the truth is Reagan switched parties for the reason he said he switch parties he felt the Democrats were too lenient on communists. Right or wrong that is why he switched. He feared that the Democrats would allow America to slide towards communism. If he was anti civil rights/anti-black the wise thing for him to do in1960's it support two senators who fought vigorously against civil rights in the Senate AKA JFK and LBJ (voted against Eisenhower's 1957 Civil Rights Act.)

Kirb Brimstone - My point is that the party switch is a myth that no historian subscribes to. It keeps being brought up on internet memes and comedy television shows (The Daily Show) but I've never heard a liberal tell me when this happened.

I don't like when people propagate lies in support of their agenda I don't like poorly researched opinions. You should know that by now.

Muhammad Rasheed - Wait, what part are you saying is the myth? That the Black community didn't move from GOP to Democrat?

Kirb Brimstone - Sure black people began moving towards to the Dem party since 1910. But that doesn't mean the Demo started championing black people or cut ties with the KKK.

Go back and listen to Malcolm X's speech 'Political Chumps' that I have posted to many times to count.

Maybe then you'll understand his frustration with black people supporting the Dems in '64.

He warned that JFK and LBJ (senators with anti-civil rights voting history) was only paying lip service to civil rights for votes.

That's why Nixon called JFK out on Civil rights in their debate.

Muhammad Rasheed - So you admit that Blacks DID switch parties, and that it wasn't a myth after all?

Kirb Brimstone - If the black community supporting a party is the indicator of that party being the civil rights party and the other party being against civil rights then do you believe that the Dems were the party of civil rights back in 1942? How about 1938? Black overwhelmingly voted Dem back then.

Muhammad Rasheed - The parties are run by the people. It doesn't matter what the parties' official mission statements and charters say, it's what work and goals the people themselves move the communities towards. The GOP isn't about their platform charter, they're about White male identity. If pro-Black people are the majority members of a given party, then yes, that party is now "pro-Black." The opposite is also true.

Muhammad Rasheed - Are there Whites in the Democratic party that hate Black people? Sure there are. But the GOP is overwhelmingly attracting racists and an anti-Black mindset.

That's not a myth.

Kirb Brimstone - Sigh. Okay Rasheed.

Duel in Honey

Muhammad Rasheed - European Scientists Discover Bee Resurgence After Banning These 3 Pesticides Still Used in The US

Muhammad Rasheed - *rolls eyes*

"Write this down, Watson... If you stop killing stuff, it'll stop dying off!"

"Amazing! By jove, I think you've solved it, Holmes! BRILLIANT!"

"Elementary! Lunch is on me, ole chap."

Stephen Wilkinson - (taking the site its from with a grain of salt)

If true, this is VERY GREAT NEWS, although not unprecedented, birds had a resurgence after the banning of DDT.

The important thing to realize is that nature is not necessarily elastic or like a spring.

A good way to think of it is pushing a KNIFE into someone.
Surprisingly, removing the knife does not "make it all just like before"

Muhammad Rasheed - "A good thing to realize?" Why would I "realize" that, when nature bounces back from abuse ALL the time. Even the ozone layer repaired itself after we finally cancelled that irresponsible Hairspray™ Broadway tour. Your impressive intellect wlll level-up significantly once you turn off that damn FoxNews monitor in your Bat Cave, Steve-O.

Stephen Wilkinson - Welcome to science Muhammad, and its often perplexing and contradictory examples!

Your arguments are without merit, as they speak to observation without comprehension.

"Nature bounces back from abuse all the time" - not really, but even more specific is the observation that it does not ( and cannot) "bounce back" from all abuse, or every abusive situation.

Sometimes it is irreparably harmed or more simply, irreparably changed in ways we may not appreciate. Sometimes "nature bounces back" but sometimes it simply cannot - and animals go extinct, gone forever.

Guess what happens when wolves are removed from an ecosystem?

Prey animals (deer ) explode in population and eat off all the vegetation, only fast growing grasses can remain, this means no trees, which then means no tree nesting /migratory birds which means no seeds distributed as droppings and on and on..
The physical landscape also changes, as hillsides now are more easily eroded into the rivers, muddying them and changing the type of life that can be supported there...

I am saying this, not as part of the advocacy to "Do nothing, it cant be fixed"

I am saying this more specifically, to point to the argument that says "TRY NOT TO FUCK IT UP - sometimes it can go all FUBAR!"

#DontTryToTestMeOnScience :D

Muhammad Rasheed - Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “Your arguments are without merit, as they speak to observation without comprehension. #DontTryToTestMeOnScience :D ”

Psh. En garde, Steve-O. Them’s fightin’ woids.

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “not really, but even more specific is the observation that it does not (and cannot) ‘bounce back’ from all abuse, or every abusive situation.”

Really? Do you really want to open the "#NotAllAbuse" door? I swear to God & Sunny Baby Jesus I will AllLivesMatter nitpick the shit out of every single post of yours until you finally die from old age next month if you don’t close it back.

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “Sometimes it is irreparably harmed or more simply, irreparably changed in ways we may not appreciate. Sometimes ‘nature bounces back’ but sometimes it simply cannot - and animals go extinct, gone forever.”

Okay, so extinctions… animals can’t come back from being extinct. So? But the environment itself can recover from damage. It can and will heal from abuse in the bigger picture. The earth is old. It’s recovered from a lot of shit more potent than we can inflict already.

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “Guess what happens when wolves [...] changing the type of life that can be supported there...”

Meanwhile the fossil record demonstrates that numerous complex animal species will appear to fill the voids created, and the eco-system will eventually recover. For example, the massive destruction that heralded the Younger Dryas event 12,800 years ago messed up everything for almost 1,300 years. The horse and other mega fauna were rendered extinct in North America, and a lot of other horrible craziness took place. The modern homo sapien has cultural memories of this cataclysm (including Noah's Ark), and it was truly terrible… we almost didn’t make it. Several Native American tribes were wiped out, too. But guess what? Nature recovered. Different than before, true. But the balance was eventually returned. So your “not really” is looking feeble and impotent right now. lol

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: “I am saying this, not as part of the advocacy to ‘Do nothing, it cant be fixed,’ I am saying this more specifically, to point to the argument that says ‘TRY NOT TO FUCK IT UP - sometimes it can go all FUBAR!’"

What can happen is that we can fuck up the part that will sustain US, until we’ll have to either abandon Big Blue Marble or die out… and then the earth will recover, regain its balance, and move on without our crazy asses. The earth itself will be fine.

Brian Reynolds - There are a lot more things at play with colony collapse, then pesticides. Varroa mites are a BIG be problem too. My father has been bee keeping since he retired 10yrs ago, and has 20 very strong hives that are all a lot of work to make sure they make it through to the next season. Honey bees are amazing creatures, and the knowledge of how to best keep them, has really only been passed down by word of mouth from 1 bee keeper to their journeyman for centuries. We don't even know 1/2 of all they do for us, or 1/2 of how what we do affect them!

Muhammad Rasheed - That's a great point. It forces me to wonder if the centuries long bee domestication has itself somehow weakened them in someways, making them vulnerable to natural forces that their wild cousins would be able to resist?

Perhaps that concept is what prompted the attempt to improve their gene pool by crossing them with the African Honey Bee.

Brian Reynolds - The African Honey Bee makes more honey, which is why they were crossed with the European Bee in the mid 1800s in South America. The settlers brought Honey bees to the Americas, they are not native here. American Indians were known to refer to them as "the White Man Fly" for once they saw them they knew that a settlement or settlers were within a 5mile radius of the bug they just saw. The beekeeper that mixed the 2 breeds was not as careful as he should have been and a Queen escaped & 150 or so years later we now have their descendants pushing their way up North America.

Muhammad Rasheed - I wonder if their population has also taken a dip?

Brian Reynolds - Yes all bees are going through the tough times atm

Brian Reynolds - The African bee is much more aggressive, because protecting your hive is hard when the thing destroying it is the size of a Truck!

Muhammad Rasheed - If that's the reason for the aggression, then it should describe all of them since those conditions are consistent throughout the species. lol

Muhammad Rasheed - I think they're more aggressive because they're Black. #/BlueLivesMatter

Brian Reynolds - Lol...I squashed them cause they were pointing their stingers at me!

Brian Reynolds - Russian bees are the only ones less susceptible to the mites

Muhammad Rasheed - Wait... the reason why the honey bee population has dropped is because of a mite infestation? Or are you talking about something else that's just a common problem to guard against? Like the bee version of "Ick?"

Brian Reynolds - Yup...look up "varroa mite".

They are parasites that bore holes into the bee and attach themselves & feed of the bees innards...the exoskeleton can not heal...the mite breads in the comb while the bee larva is gestating...new bee comes out with a couple attached and a few mites that didn't attach come out looking for a bee to call home...each time the mite spawns it makes 7 new mites...they are smaller then a poppy seed.  A lot of keepers have been using powdered sugar on the colonies because the unattached mites have a hard time holding onto a bee dusted with it. Plus the bees eat it and turn it into honey.  Each hive only has 1 Queen, get some mites on her and that colony can go to shit real fast.

Brian Reynolds - 20 good hives, I help my Pop out from time to time with them. Last 2yrs we have collected about 1000lbs of honey a year.

A Fiend That's Just. Like. YOU!

Stephen Wilkinson - Georgia Democrat compares Israeli settlers to burrowing termites

Stephen Wilkinson - When you reach up into your ass for something to say .... how can you claim to have a "poor choice of words?"

Something really needs to be done about these fucking insults followed by "non-apologies"

Muhammad Rasheed - So he's describing the Israelis' continuing encroachment into the Palestinian lands, with the government cutting roads through their territory while making it illegal for the Palestinian natives to use those roads, but Rep. Johnson is the bad guy because he used a termite analogy to describe this hostile, anti-human rights activity?

I'm just mad that he didn't stand his ground when the inevitable criticisms came.

Stephen Wilkinson - My problem with his statement is that it is unbecoming to someone of his stature and also because it misstates the situation and ignores his role in effecting change.

Israel is very fractured and the settlements appease the right wing and allow the coalition that forms the govt to continue.

While it affects the peace process, (agitation), it creates a bargaining chip ( cheaply) and a new status quo if bargaining does not move quickly enough.

His comments therefore, should reflect the reality and then seek to guide the narrative, rather than allow both sides to hide behind their talking points.

In a nutshell, the Israeli statement is:

No negotiations on peace? then , while you continue to NOT move towards peace, we will continue to edge our borders outwards.

Korac MacArthur - Dehumanizing anyone leads to bad things. Has the world forgotten this?

Muhammad Rasheed - @Stephen... So Rep. Johnson's comment is unbecoming but the Israeli "agitation" that you admit sabotages the peace process isn't unbecoming of a world super power? His comment is misstating the admitted peace-process-sabotaging Israeli agitation by comparing their unwelcome borrowing roads into other people's territory to when termites borrow their destructive road-like passageways into peoples' domiciles, which is equally unwelcome? His comments aren't an accurate analogy that reflect the reality of the situation?

You admit that the Israelis themselves are using their far superior force to encroach into Palestinian territory with termite-like destructive hostile behavior, they arrest Palestinians for touching those roads cutting directly through their lives, which "agitates" and sabotages the peace process the Israelis only pretend to want, and yet you parade the official Israeli soundbite that its the Palestinians who don't want peace?

I am cringing in anticipation of the gruesome spinal distortions you'll have to perform to explain this, and actually have it make sense to someone who doesn't remotely consider the secular Zionists of the nation-state of Israel to be any kind of good guy in any possible way.

Muhammad Rasheed - Korac MacArthur wrote: "Dehumanizing anyone leads to bad things. Has the world forgotten this?"

An analogy that describes their behavior is "dehumanization" to you, Korac? Please justify this comment.

Stephen Wilkinson - @Muhammad Rasheed... a woman breaks into a store kicks the owner in the balls and steals a loaf of bread.

Rep Johnson calls her a bitch.

Inappropriate for one of his stature as a U.S. representative and unhelpful to the issue.

We also were not discussing the break-in, the theft, the balls, or bread, so THAT is also irrelevant.

As part of a larger discussion, focusing on tangential issues like the comment allows the real damage to take place.

The REAL issue is the political mileage that BOTH sides use from this issue to maintain their base of support and funding.

Neither side is particularly interested in any real peace as BOTH would immediately turn inwards self-destructively torn by their internal pressures.

Israel in particular is torn by the religious identity of being a Jew with its constitutional definition as a secular state, a constitution that is at odds with its 20th century Apartheid system existentially, and as a more immediate practical matter, its burgeoning Israeli Arab population.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Stephen Wilkinson... a woman breaks into a store, kills a bunch of children.

Rep Johnson compares her to a female ant that breaks into an aphid nest and kills all the aphid larvae.

A very appropriate comment, that perfectly lines up to the events in question. He shouldn't have backed down from the bs criticisms, and instead, committed himself to speaking truth to power.

Stephen Wilkinson wrote: "As part of a larger discussion, focusing on tangential issues like the comment allows the real damage to take place."

As part of any kind of discussion, focusing on his termite analogy was completely full of crap. lol

The REAL issue is that Israel is the bad guy in this "unrest in the middle east" tale, and engage in massacres/apartheid-like evil against the natives starting in 1948.

The Palestinians were often interested in real peace, until they were eventually forced to confront the reality that the secular Zionists had only ever had one goal when they talked the European World Powers into seizing that land and handing it over to them.

Israel is only torn by the evil & greed of it's leadership class versus everyone else.

Stephen Wilkinson - You may wanna lay off the (racist?) ant vs aphid analogy - since aphids are pests!! :D :D

I reject the characterization of Israel as "the bad guy" ( semantically at this point, a case of "a" vs "the" ).

I further reject the characterization of the Palestinians as ever wanting peace of any kind, at least and as long as their very constitution calls for the elimination of the state of Israel.

That whole "our idea of peace is for YOU to fucking die" thing... it screws up negotiations tremendously!

Muhammad Rasheed - lol Meanwhile that is ISRAEL'S stance on the matter. The Palestinians very generously really wanted to live in peace with the zionists, even after all the genocides, broken treaties and massacres, etc. But again, and again, Israel only SAID they wanted peace to the world press, while slaughtering those people in practice. Its always been that way. Israel is absolutely the bad guy in this story, and if the Palestinians have finally decided to take Maya Angelou's advice and "believe them the first time" that doesn't make them as the oppressed a bad guy at all, as they have the right to defend themselves from a truly evil, hostile, secular, European force, that only pretends to have rights to that land. Remember that back in 1948, the proto-Israelis heralded this conflict by slaughtering over 700,000 native Muslims, Christians, [wait for it] -- AND JEWS!!! -- and dumped them all in a mass grave. Whatever you were told is NOT what is actually going on over there. At BEST it's an evil hoax.

Korac MacArthur - Dehumanizaion leads to people treating people like pests, animals,the easy to kill "other" that has plagued humanity since the first tribal caveman conflicts. There are many justifications for this, the Jews used to justifiably be upset at some of the Germans for treating them as subhuman and killing them like dogs. Now in the area they control, some of the Israeli powermongers choose to forget how that is and since they are on the other end of it now there, can act like superior pricks and treat the latest target (the Palestinians) badly, tho not yet up to the parr of concentration camps and mass executions on sight.

Muhammad Rasheed - Korac MacArthur wrote: "Dehumanizaion leads to people treating people like pests..."

You're protesting the use of an accurate animal descriptive analogy to describe the Zionists' hostile behavior towards the natives, because it might make people act hostile towards the hostile Zionists.

>:(

Korac MacArthur - Non zionists can be racists too, it starts small and improves as people realize there is no "Final Solution" and try to if not get along, at least leave each other alone.

Believing the Enemy's Narrative

Tee Rasheed - If you had a choice between anyone but Clinton or Trump, would you vote for someone else?

Marilyn N. Crowe - Bernie

Tee Rasheed - Since Bernie isn't an option anymore, would you vote for someone else if you had another option?

Muhammad Rasheed - It depends on if the 3rd option would:

have an actual chance of winning, and I wouldn't be tossing my voice into the windsupport/make permanent all of the Obama Admin initiatives.
Rickie Smathers - Honestly at this point don't feel like voting

Tee Rasheed - It seems like people feel like voting for anyone else other than those two evil people would be the equivalent of not voting at all because their votes won't count.

Tee Rasheed - I personally don't understand why no one else would be considered just because Clump was chosen by dems and repub. I guess I am having a hard time understanding why we limit ourselves, even at a time that is so dire, to the worst choices ever when we have no idea who the other candidates are.

Muhammad Rasheed - This is why it would be like throwing your vote into the wind:

Muhammad Rasheed - The total number of diehard "Will vote Demo NO MATTER WHAT!!! YEAH!!! GO BLUE TEAM!!!" is just under the total numbers of their GOP counterparts. So if the wishy-washy Demo voters joined forces with the independents, their numbers won't be strong enough to get a 3rd party candidate in office because the GOP true believers have the greatest over-all voting bloc. It's just numbers.

Tee Rasheed - *groans*

Tee Rasheed - Liiiiiiiessss.... But whatever lol.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Tee Rasheed - Politics are bs. We're still pushing agendas of other people under the guise that there will be something in it for us. We're fueling our own demise and being used in the most overt ways. I am really trying my best not to feel hopeless. I am certainly leaving this place as soon as humanly possible. I can't imagine having to take much more of this nonsense and see people still creating this idea that it is legit and believing these "parties" will do what they say. We're being used.

Tee Rasheed - It's the most frustrating thing in the world to watch. Surrounded by hate, can't even play Pokemon GO carefree without the real danger of being shot on sight, it's just insanity. I have no faith in this thing at all. And if I don't vote? Then what? Effing Hillary might not the eff be president? Jebus!

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm not a Democrat myself, so it took some research for me to decide to jump on the Obama train. I was moved by his campaign vision and agreed to trust him with my vote. To my surprise he ended up defending against and fighting for some items that were dear to my heart, that I thought I would never see (it turns out it was easy for him to do as a Moderate). In addition, I watched his pro-Middle Class plans to fix the destruction caused by NAFTA -- with a combo of Common Core, College Loan Reform, the 100,000 Tech Jobs initiative, and his part of the TPP -- come to fruition with awe, as it was genuinely brilliant, and from his heart.

Now I'm sorry to see him go, glad that I voted for him and supported him, and want only that the next POTUS doesn't fuck up his achievements before we can benefit from them as a nation and as a people.

Tee Rasheed - I've been hearing this "tossing my vote into the wind" stuff a lot. People don't want Clump, but they don't want to vote for anyone else either.

Muhammad Rasheed - This is the same scenario that preceded George W. Bush becoming POTUS the first time. A lackadaisical Democratic voter, who was unmotivated for whatever reason to get out and vote against the main GOP opposition, either didn't vote at all, or gave their vote to Ralph Nader, preventing the diehard Demo voters from being able to cinch the White House victory.

If it happens again it will be even worse than it was the last time. Trump hasn't been shy about courting the racist vote, and not voting for Hillary will be insane.

Rickie Smathers - @Muhammad Rasheed... after reading your comment I'll make sure I vote

Tee Rasheed - What a sad state of affairs. The banks choose the candidates and the American people choose their demise. :(

Muhammad Rasheed - The Obama Administration had a clear and aggressive vision for building up the Middle Class, and I need a democrat in office that will support those historic initiatives. Since he actually partnered with the Clinton family on many of those items, I can count on Hillary to secure the Obama Agenda, and also make those Executive Orders permanent.

And I certainly DON'T want a Republican in office who will take credit for the Obama initiatives that we won't actually feel the effects of for another couple of years.

Tee Rasheed - I don't know. I just hear too much contradictory information.

Muhammad Rasheed - Like what?

Tee Rasheed - Ugh don't make me do that. I will write a note on it or something. I will be writing all night lmao

Muhammad Rasheed - lol Just give me two examples.

Tee Rasheed - Okay... argh...

Number one, there isn't really a middle class at all to build up. The term "middle class" is even being filtered out of everyday political language: Why the Term "Middle Class" Is Meaningless Today

Number two, Hillary is owned by bankers. She isn't going to do anything favorable for our economy because she literally can't. She will serve to compound America's problems because of her secret squirrel, opportunist nature. Whatever good that did occur for the economy under her husband's presidency just happened to be a series of events that just happened to work out well by the end of his term, not something he contributed to directly.

Muhammad Rasheed - When I said "a clear and aggressive vision for building up the Middle Class," it was referring to the gutting that socio-economic class took after NAFTA was implemented, and all of our manufacturing plants were shipped overseas. Combined with inflation, what the median income brings in today isn't what it was during the golden age of the Middle Class era, when the automobile plants were king. Obama's plan will return the high income lifestyle to us through the skilled tech industry, which will also bring manufacturing along back with it, through Asian nation partnerships. At first it will be mostly immigrant driven, until the next generations -- empowered by Common Core math/science mastery and the College Loan Reform in Obamacare -- enter the markets and compete, making America a world leader in science/tech once more. The Middle Class will return with a vengeance, and it will be glorious.

Second, the political talking points are pulling away from the term "middle class" just because the new income disparities based on the gutting of the Middle Class has created a very real class warfare situation (It's what the Occupy Movement was about), and the politicians call themselves being sensitive to it, and changing the language. They are still talking about the same group though, semantic back-flips aside.

During the Clinton Administration, the president worked closely with the Fed Chair Alan Greenspan to put together a plan to get the deficit down in a very deliberate fashion. What was MOST interesting about that partnership to me, was the fact that before Greenspan was chosen to be the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, he was VERY anti-fiat, and VERY pro-gold standard. As acting Fed Chair during Bill's '90s, he deliberately made the interest rates mimic the performance of gold and advised the POTUS how to work the system to bring down the deficit the way he did. Then as soon as he stepped down as Fed Chair, he immediately flipped right back to being VERY anti-fiat, and VERY pro-gold standard. It is not insignificant that Obama worked closely with the Clintons in many of his own initiatives and battles. For example, he removed the big banks as middle men in the college loan process... a policy built within Obamacare and the REAL reason why the GOP hates the shit out of it... and he has protected the free markets under his watch from predator corporate cartels/monopolies, which directly aids the consumers and small business.

I expect Hillary to keep the momentum going. It's not impossible that she would do some dirty shit once she's in, but from the data analysis (not the talking head political gab) it doesn't seem likely.

Before Your Eyes: Trumpster Self-Indoctrination

Chris Suess - Breaking: Hillary Clinton's strange convulsions during interview - tries to play it off

Chris Suess - Clearly some brain or nerve damage... think twice before getting on the ‪#‎VagVote‬ train.

Muhammad Rasheed - I saw the full thing. She was just mocking the rush of questions that they all tried to pile on her in the second before. Whoever grabbed the snipped clip just tried to make it into something weird for you all's sites.

Chris Suess - Sure. Either answer not particularly presidential

Muhammad Rasheed - She showed her sense of humor. POTUS' are allowed to have that, Chris.

Chris Suess - But when trump mocked someone it wasnt ok?

Muhammad Rasheed - There were times when he did similar light mocking over silly, mundane items in the moment like Hillary did, and it was okay. Then there were the more unfortunate times when he created the divisive, racist, sexist climate we are currently in -- where David Duke himself said he supports Trump for strategy -- that WEREN'T okay.

Chris Suess - I think if it is mocking as you xlaim it is indicative of how well she regards the pissheads. For someone that stages as many shots as she does it doest smell right. Thats interesting that a democrat like duke likes trump. Seems to confirm my belief that he isnt really very conservative.

Muhammad Rasheed - You're looking at it through the lens of the website's clip editing. If you saw what really happened... with the several press members stumbling over themselves to shout questions at her all at once, with her resulting teasing as if the barrage was actually physically shaking her... you'd perhaps understand better that it wasn't a big deal at all.

If anything the "RedStateWatcher" editing demonstrates just how dangerous that heavily-biased media manipulation can really be.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tell me the Top Three items that make David Duke a Democrat, please.

From Bitter Party Rival to Vice President?

Muhammad Rasheed - Obama didn't choose Clinton as his VP either, followed by similar bitchin' & moanin'.

Before y'all go any further with all of that, can you show me the historical precedents where heated party rivals ended up choosing each other as presidential candidate and running mate?

Alan Groening - Sometimes it's on the cabinet but rarely is it the VP

Abdur Rasheed - Trump picked Cruz!

Muhammad Rasheed - Oh, shit!!!

Muhammad Rasheed - Wait...

Muhammad Rasheed - No. I mean for real.

Muhammad Rasheed - Did it happen in like, the 1700s or something?

Abdur Rasheed - Well they are now best friends and he'll probably make him secretary of agriculture or nominate him for that open Supreme Court seat.

Muhammad Rasheed - None of that is VP though... >:(

Muhammad Rasheed - The following day at the Texas Republican delegation breakfast, Cruz defended his choice to not endorse Trump: "I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father. That pledge was not a blanket commitment that if you go and slander and attack Heidi, that I'm going to nonetheless come like a puppy dog and say, ‘Thank you very much for maligning my wife and maligning my father.'"

Muhammad Rasheed - I hope Trump DID ask him to be his VP, too. lol "I'll give you my answer at the convention, Buddy."

Abdur Rasheed - No wait! I had that wrong. It got so bad that Trump called Cruz's wife ugly and Cruz just gave a speech AT THE GOP CONVENTION and told everybody NOT to vote for Trump!

Cruz: "FUCK TRUMP'S BITCHASS!!! Hillary 2016!"

Then he and his wife dropped a smoke grenade and got the fuck out of there.

Cruz booed after refusing to endorse Trump

Never mind.

Maybe it's that 1700 thing.

Muhammad Rasheed - I already knew that.

This is a real question because of the complaints from the '08 Hillary-ites and the Sanders-ites now. Because if it happens ALL THE TIME! then maybe they have a legit bitch session. If not, then they can shut the hell up about it.

Abdur Rasheed - lol

That shit has never happened before.

Abdur Rasheed - *shrugs* They can shut the hell up anyway.

Muhammad Rasheed - YOU!!!

Abdur Rasheed - Huh?

Muhammad Rasheed - Wait... sorry.

Muhammad Rasheed - hahaa

Muhammad Rasheed - I thought you were someone else.


Abdur Rasheed - I thought I was going somewhere.

Alan Groening - ME!!!!!!

Abdur Rasheed - I'm more concerned about Trumps pivot toward the "Law and Order Candidate."

Ordinarily I would just dismiss Trumps suck hole noise as more in coherent bullshit not based in reality, but this raises some questions if you look at all of the facts.

Trump is tight with the white supremacy groups. They know that he is as close as they will come to a mainstream national politician. He keeps lying and saying that the black lives matter movement kills cops in a loop. Everyone knows that when stupid people hear the same tripe 5 times in a row it becomes a truthiness. He keeps saying that crime is running rampant especially in the inner cities and he will be the "Law and Order" president. Why in the blue fuck would a sitting President of the United States concern himself with local crime especially when crime is at a 30 year low?
He JUST started this "Law and Order" bullshit.

Muhammad Rasheed - Alan, you better not be trying to work up the nerve to pull one of your "thought police" moves on me. I've noticed that your presence has conspicuously increased on my Timeline in the last couple of hours.

Do NOT start telling me what I can or can't say on my own wall based on how the current socio-political climate is falling on me. Final warning. I'm serious.

Alan Groening - Dude I didnt

Muhammad Rasheed - BETTER NOT.

Alan Groening - I am sorry about last time dude

Muhammad Rasheed - Okay. Just so we're on the same page.

Alan Groening - We are

Muhammad Rasheed - I've been itching to cuss somebody out, getting almost jealous at the NERVE some people have on my sisters' Timelines.

Muhammad Rasheed - I wish a motherfucka WOULD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alan Groening -  :(

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm back.

What did you say, Abdur...?

Abdur Rasheed - I'm scared.

Nothing!

Dang!

Alan Groening -  :D

Alan Groening - @Muhammad... I still wanna continue the FAT BATMAN war again, remember fat-Bat?

Muhammad Rasheed - Who did the last Fat-Bat vs Fat Batman toon?

Alan Groening - @Muhammad Rasheed... ah hell i dunno...

Muhammad Rasheed - I'll find it. Stand by...

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) David Duke said he wasn't ALL in for Trump, but he agreed that Trump's semi-racist platform would be good strategy for them.

2.) That's why the Democrat acceptance of that "Killary" shit that the GOP has had on a loop pisses me off. If the blue candidate isn't a Rock Star, then the Dem's can be lackadaisical at the polls, and the GOP knows that shit. Keeping their base fired up JUST ENOUGH to beat the diehard Democratic voters is all they need to make the Dem's give away the White House like idiots.

3.) "SUPERPREDATORS II: Elephant Bulldozer"

4.) Because his base feels that crime is a Black monopoly, and he's supported by anti-Black racism, so...

Yeah.

Muhammad Rasheed - Trump's version of "Law & Order"

HISTORY LESSON: Eurocentrist versus Truth

Muhammad Rasheed – smh


Timothy Janson - Total bullshit narrative. SOME Mexican immigrants are criminals and rapists. Guess what so are some white people and African American people. HE never said ALL...but people believe the bullshit they want to believe.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol Building a wall to "keep out the Mexicans" is a clear "all." hahahaha Don't try to bullshit me with word games, please. I thought we were building a friendship?

Timothy Janson - You didn't mention a wall. You mentioned criminals and rapists. And you realize we already have a border fence right? He just wants a bigger one. Are you for unchecked immigration?

Muhammad Rasheed - Trump mentioned both the wall and Mexicans as "criminals & rapists." hahahahahaha His intentions are clear: to be proudly divisive and bigoted.

Are you really asking ME -- the descendant of the former American slave -- whether I'm for "unchecked immigration" or not? In all honesty why would I give a shit? You should've asked me that back in Africa...

Timothy Janson - Hey I'm Swedish. The descendant of Vikings...we were here before all your asses.

Muhammad Rasheed - Were you? lol


Muhammad Rasheed - Confine your Eurocentric fictions to your own page, please. They are not wanted -- nor accepted as truth -- on mine. Thank you.

Timothy Janson - Well...i believe the first africans arrived in North America in 1619. The Vikings were here 600 years earlier.

Muhammad Rasheed - Are you aware that those "Olmec" stone heads (see sample above) are ancient beyond that? That the civilization that created them is gone so far in distant antiquity, that we have no way to test them other than the CLEAR very, very African features they boast?

I am unlikely to take the word of the Eurocentric as a final word on history when his bias against my people's history is legendary in its disrespect. Your scientist literally stepped over the more ancient, civilizing traces of the African in the New World, to dig around on the coast for the far more recent viking stuff to support his Eurocentric model of human history.

It should go without saying that I am unimpressed with this.

Muhammad Rasheed - In your research, were your li'l vikings building 500 ton statues and pyramids when they arrived, or were they desperately trying to figure out how they got so far off course from whatever poor sap they were planning to loot & pillage?


Timothy Janson - Well when find one of those in Maine or new hampshire or Newfoundland let me know.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol And that will prove...

...what?

Muhammad Rasheed - Let me hear it.

Timothy Janson - Look man. I tried. But you're angry about life in general. I won't condescend to you by saying i know how you feel because i never will. But you've decided that what you say is right. What I say is wrong. I've encountered too many who want to re-write history to please themselves. Have a good night and a good life.

Muhammad Rasheed - I've decided what I say is right while maintaining an open mind that there is someone who will come along and prove me wrong with a well thought out counter argument, forcing me to adjust my world view[s].

I think I've been very generous in welcoming all comers. Did you notice I am not one to resort to a "block first" policy when it comes to dealing with alternate views on social media?

Muhammad Rasheed - If you can prove that "White is right" beyond a shadow of a doubt, then allow the facts to stand as they may. But simply expecting me to blind faith BELIEVE that the Eurocentric model is true, just because ol' massa proclaimed it as such, fails to move me in any way, shape or form.

This primarily because the facts of history are on MY side, and unfortunately for my classic ideological opponent, he routinely brushes those facts under the rug, and thus is at a disadvantage. He genuinely has no idea how to process such information, you see, traditionally using a bullying, monopoly of thought approach to learning that excludes whatever he doesn't want to think about.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Timothy... (in response to your "But you're angry about life in general")

Video shows moments before North Miami Police shot unarmed man